@article{Weiss2017, author = {Weiß, Norman}, title = {Origin and Further Development}, series = {The Council of Europe}, journal = {The Council of Europe}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-967252-3}, pages = {3 -- 22}, year = {2017}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannSeyfriedBrajnik2017, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Seyfried, Markus and Brajnik, Irena Baclija}, title = {Mayors and administrative reforms}, series = {Political Leaders and Changing Local Democracy}, journal = {Political Leaders and Changing Local Democracy}, publisher = {Palgrave}, address = {Basingstoke}, isbn = {978-3-319-67410-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-67410-0_13}, pages = {387 -- 409}, year = {2017}, abstract = {In recent decades, a wave of administrative reforms has changed local governance in many European countries. However, our knowledge about differences as well as similarities between the countries, driving forces, impacts, perceptions, and evaluation of these reforms is still limited. In the chapter, the authors give an overview about mayors' perceptions and evaluations of two major reform trajectories: (a) re-organisation of local service delivery and (b) internal administrative/managerial reforms. Furthermore, differences between (groups of) countries as well as similarities among them are shown in these two fields of administrative reform. Finally, the authors tried to identify explanatory factors for specific perceptions of administrative reforms at the local level.}, language = {en} } @article{HustedtSeyfried2017, author = {Hustedt, Thurid and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Inside the EU Commission}, series = {JCMS - Journal of common market studies}, volume = {56}, journal = {JCMS - Journal of common market studies}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0021-9886}, doi = {10.1111/jcms.12605}, pages = {368 -- 384}, year = {2017}, abstract = {This article studies the perception of the EU Commission's Secretariat General in policy-making. Recently, research on EU institutions devotes increasing attention to analyzing structures and procedures of decision-making in EU institutions, most notably the EU Commission. Conventionally, the EU Commission is portrayed as a fragmented organization, divided along the lines of staff nationality, sectoral responsibilities and cabinets and General Directorates (DGs). The Secretariat General has long been viewed a weak actor that is hardly able or motivated to steer internal decision-making. However, recent research indicates a changing role of the Secretariat General as a pro-active broker and last arbiter. This article studies how the Secretariat General is perceived by the DGs in policy coordination and argues that this perception depends on the pattern of political authority, bureaucratic roles and the relevance and the alternatives prevailing in the policy field. The article is based on data from a survey among Commission officials.}, language = {en} } @article{GanghofEppner2017, author = {Ganghof, Steffen and Eppner, Sebastian}, title = {Patterns of accountability and representation}, series = {Politics}, volume = {39}, journal = {Politics}, number = {1}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {0263-3957}, doi = {10.1177/0263395717710566}, pages = {113 -- 130}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Arend Lijphart uses an average of five standardized variables - the executive-parties dimension (EPD) - to describe patterns of democracy and explain differences in democracies' performance. The article suggests ways to improve the descriptive part of the project. It argues that the EPD maps different approaches to achieving accountability and representation, rather than differences in consensus. This re-conceptualization leads to a more coherent and valid measurement. It is also argued that more systematic adjustments are needed for differences in constitutional structures (presidentialism and bicameralism). The article presents data on a revised EPD and its components for 36 democracies in the period from 1981 to 2010. As to the explanatory part of the project, we contend that the EPD often hinders adequate causal analysis rather than facilitating it. We show this by re-analysing democracies' performance with respect to turnout and capital punishment.}, language = {en} } @article{EsguerraBeckLidskog2017, author = {Esguerra, Alejandro and Beck, Silke and Lidskog, Rolf}, title = {Stakeholder Engagement in the Making}, series = {Global environmental politics}, volume = {17}, journal = {Global environmental politics}, publisher = {MIT Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {1526-3800}, doi = {10.1162/GLEP_a_00390}, pages = {59 -- 76}, year = {2017}, abstract = {A growing number of expert organizations aim to provide knowledge for global environmental policy-making. Recently, there have also been explicit calls for stakeholder engagement at the global level to make scientific knowledge relevant and usable on the ground. The newly established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is one of the first international expert organizations to have systematically developed a strategy for stakeholder engagement in its own right. In this article, we analyze the emergence of this strategy. Employing the concept politics of legitimation, we examine how and for what reasons stakeholder engagement was introduced, justified, and finally endorsed, as well as its effects. The article explores the process of institutionalizing stakeholder engagement, as well as reconstructing the contestation of the operative norms (membership, tasks, and accountability) regulating the rules for this engagement. We conclude by discussing the broader importance of the findings for IPBES, as well as for international expert organizations in general.}, language = {en} } @article{DoerflerHolzingerBiesenbender2017, author = {D{\"o}rfler, Thomas and Holzinger, Katharina and Biesenbender, Jan}, title = {Constitutional Dynamics in the European Union}, series = {International Journal of Public Administration}, volume = {40}, journal = {International Journal of Public Administration}, number = {14}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {Philadelphia}, issn = {0190-0692}, doi = {10.1080/01900692.2017.1295267}, pages = {1237 -- 1249}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Despite high institutional hurdles for constitutional change, one observes surprisingly many EU treaty revisions. This article takes up the questions of what determines whether a treaty provision is successfully changed and why provisions are renegotiated at subsequent Intergovernmental Conferences. The article presents an institutionalist theory explaining success and renegotiation and tests the theory using all core institutional provisions by means of Qualitative Comparative Analysis. The causal analysis shows that low conflict potential of an issue is sufficient for successfully changing the treaties. Furthermore, high conflict potential of an issue and its fundamental change are sufficient for it to be renegotiated.}, language = {en} } @article{Daviter2017, author = {Daviter, Falk}, title = {Coping, taming or solving}, series = {Policy studies}, volume = {38}, journal = {Policy studies}, number = {6}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0144-2872}, doi = {10.1080/01442872.2017.1384543}, pages = {571 -- 588}, year = {2017}, abstract = {One of the truisms of policy analysis is that policy problems are rarely solved. As an ever-increasing number of policy issues are identified as an inherently ill-structured and intractable type of wicked problem, the question of what policy analysis sets out to accomplish has emerged as more central than ever. If solving wicked problems is beyond reach, research on wicked problems needs to provide a clearer understanding of the alternatives. The article identifies and explicates three distinguishable strategies of problem governance: coping, taming and solving. It shows that their intellectual premises and practical implications clearly contrast in core respects. The article argues that none of the identified strategies of problem governance is invariably more suitable for dealing with wicked problems. Rather than advocate for some universally applicable approach to the governance of wicked problems, the article asks under what conditions different ways of governing wicked problems are analytically reasonable and normatively justified. It concludes that a more systematic assessment of alternative approaches of problem governance requires a reorientation of the debate away from the conception of wicked problems as a singular type toward the more focused analysis of different dimensions of problem wickedness.}, language = {en} } @article{Borgnaes2017, author = {Borgn{\"a}s, Kajsa}, title = {Indicators as 'circular argumentation constructs'?}, series = {Environment, Development and Sustainability}, volume = {19}, journal = {Environment, Development and Sustainability}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1387-585X}, doi = {10.1007/s10668-016-9764-0}, pages = {769 -- 790}, year = {2017}, abstract = {This paper is concerned with the normative underpinnings of popular sustainability indicators and country rankings. Attempts to quantify national sustainability in the form of composite indicators and rankings have increased rapidly over past decades. However, questions regarding validity and interpretability remain. This article combines theoretical and statistical tools to explore how input variables in five popular sustainability indicators can be related to different theoretical paradigms: weak and strong sustainability. It is shown that differences in theoretical interpretations affect input variable selection, which in turn affects indicator output. This points towards the risk of indicators becoming a sort of 'circular argumentation construct'. The article argues that sustainability indicators and country rankings must be treated as theoretical just as much as statistical instruments. It is proposed that making underlying normative assumptions explicit, and making input variable selection more clear in a theoretical sense, can enhance indicator validity and usability for policy makers and researchers alike.}, language = {en} }